For Iverson, he obviously had his flaws but he was phenomenal to watch in his prime. Even when he was terrible it was clear that he was playing his heart out. (no PRACTICE) On top of that he really was an icon to a lot of people. It hasn't been a question to me for a long time whether or not he was a Hall of Famer.

Hill: There's no denying the college resume and it's so easy to forget just how good he was in his prime. He was basically doing what Lebron is doing now in his prime just with less flair. I also give him some credit for coming back and playing well late into his 30's.

T-Mac - He's a tough one but he had a REALLY good run playing at a level of basketball that only a handful of players ever reached. The fact that he came out of high school gives him a little more longevity than a lot of people realize. Also the playoff thing is so overblown.

F*** Marc Davis, f*** Tim Donaghy and f*** David Stern as a staff, record label and as a mothaf**kin crew......and if you wanna be down with Stern then F*** YOU TOO!!! Stu Jackson f*** you too.....all you mothaf**kas F*** YOU TOO!!!!

As noted above, Hill was ridiculous good his first six years in the league. When he went FA in 2000 everyone wanted this guy.

+1

Hill is the Gale Sayers of the NBA. A career cut short by injury but one of the best when he was healthy. It's a no brainer if his college career is also figured in. Rookie of the year. An all star from day one until the injury. All NBA 1st team and four all NBA 2nd teams. Finished 3rd in MVP behind MJ and Malone. Had 13 tripple doubles in a season and averaged 21/9/7 that season. The guy was a machine.

As noted above, Hill was ridiculous good his first six years in the league. When he went FA in 2000 everyone wanted this guy.

This. Hill was on his way to being an all-time great before injury. I know you can't give a guy a pass because of an injury, but he still had many fantastic years and his college resume is superb. His best year in the L he put up 21/9/7/2/1 on 49% shooting from the field, under 16 FGA per. No doubt about it, this guy was the real deal. That he was able to have 6 great seasons before the injuries kicked in does it for me. And even after injury, he had a year when he came back and had a really promising season...only to get injured again. Now, in his twilight years, he's a solid role player.

To me, he's in. AI probably is, too.

paul wrote:Not kidding, I missed most of the second overtime cleaning up with handy wipes, much like twirl.

A couple things I remember about Grant Hill. During that NCAA tournament game I recall watching him basically shut down Glenn Robinson. And it stuck with me and bothered me when we drafted Glenn. As a fan I totally supported the Robinson pick and he was consensus #1. But you always had that aching pit in your stomach when you think back to what HIll did him. Hill was just a lot better all around player and while Glenn was a very good player for us, we missed the boat on Hill.

The other thing I remember is that I was working in Detroit the day it was official and Hill told Dumars he wasn't going to re-sign with the Pistons and that the sign and trade needed to go into effect. People in that city and sports radio thought the world had ended. It would be the equivalent of if Aaron Rodgers after this year said he's out of GB and done with the Packers after six awesome seasons.

And yet amazingly, two season later the Pistons rise from the ashes and assemble a team that makes two Finals and wins a title while Hill can't take the floor for a full season for years. No one could have ever predicted that.

I don't tweet much, but when I do, it is the same garbage you get from me on here:

For me, AI is a lock in, Sheed is a lock out, Id accept anything for the others. I voted for AI, Tmac and Hill though.

AI just did too much to not be in. Leading a team single handedly to the Finals, winning MVP (which he shouldn't have), and being a huge icon in a transfer of style in the NBA.

I also think Tmac gets in. His prime was far and away the best of all these players, he played at such a high level.

Hill also gets in, for a number of reasons. First is is college success. Next is his very respectable prime, in which he literally did everything on the floor. Third, is he still is/was a valuable role player into his late 30s, something only few do, and even less who have had a major injury.

What is more important to the HOF? Is it how good you were at your peak or how long you were in the league? In other words, who was the better player...guy A that averaged 25/9/7 for 6 seasons or guy B that averages 22/4/4 for 12 seasons? No doubt guy A was the better player but did guy B have the better career? So which is more important to getting into the HOF? I guess both is the answer but is it a 50/50 combo or more a 20/80 or 80/20 combo?

No doubt in my mind Hill was a better player than Iverson yet Iverson is viewed here as a lock for the HOF while Hill is getting a lot less votes. My guess is a big part of this is the average age of the posters.

In math and logic there's a technique called "reductio ad absurdum", which is Latin for reduction to absurdity. In order to assess the merits of a fact, you assume it's true and make logical deductions. If the assumption that it's true logically leads to a conclusion that leaves you shaking your head, then you must question the assumption.

In this case, if we assume that longevity should be so important, we are logically led to the conclusion that Joe Dumars should be in the hall of fame while Tracy McGrady and Grant Hill are not. I would argue that this is absurd. McGrady was a top-5 player in the league for years, and probably the best for a few. Hill never cracked #1, but was clearly top-10 from almost the time he was drafted in 1994 until 2000. To say nothing of his college record. Was Dumars ever a top-20 player in the league at any point?

If you're not going to let elite players in because of their lack of longevity, then I would argue that you have to stop letting non-elite players in despite their longevity.

I'd also argue that it's the Hall of "Fame", which on some level just involves being famous for being really good at basketball or for otherwise making significant contributions to the game. I'm down to leave out guys like Rasheed for underachieving their entire careers, but not Carter or T-Mac and especially not Hill.

When you're spinning your wheels in mud, sometimes you have to put the car in reverse. If you refuse to do so on principle, you're an idiot.

upnorthfan wrote:Juri Welsch and Smush Parker and dozens of others. Oh wait, those guys were just HOF'ers when playing against the Bucks. There will be more to come this season.

B.J. Mullens

Keep'em comin. Robin Lopez.

As for the ones listed I say Iverson and none of the others. Iverson had a heart of a Champion.

Vince (Ihad to go to graduation the mourning of a game seven), Hill (I was injured my whole career), Rasheed (I should be in the technicle HOF at least) and Tracey (I was flashy yeah but never won) McGrady.

I say yes to Carter, Hill, and Iverson. The basketball hall of fame has less criteria than some other sports to get in. Plus those guys have great stats, like Carter's 21,000 points, Iverson's 24,000 points and 7 All-NBA (and 1 MVP), and I never knew Hill was in the top 10 in triple doubles though he hasn't had one since 1998!